Restorative Justice Pilot Evaluation · In 2014, OMNI Institute (OMNI) was awarded a grant from SCAO to conduct an evaluation of the pilot in order to document its implementation

Restorative Justice Pilot Evaluation Preliminary Report

Submitted To: The State Court Administrator’s Office January, 2016

Restorative Justice Pilot Evaluation Preliminary Report

For more information, please contact:

Chandra Winder, MPA

[email protected]

303.839.9422

Jean Denious, PhD

[email protected]

303.839.9422

For General Inquiries/Questions

p. 303-839-9422

f. 303-839-9420

OMNI Institute

899 Logan Street, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

www.omni.org

Table of Contents Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Development of Evaluation Plan and Measurement Tools ..................................................................... 3

Measures ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Sample ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Results ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Demographics of Offender Youth ........................................................................................................................ 5

Process Data................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Victim Participation Data .................................................................................................................................... 8

Youth Offender Accountability ............................................................................................................................. 9

Satisfaction Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

Offender satisfaction ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Victim Satisfaction .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Community Member Satisfaction ................................................................................................................. 14

Recidivism .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Evaluation Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 18

Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................................................... i

Figures Figure 1: Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Referral Source for RJ participants ........................................................................................................ 6

Figure 3: Type of RJ process ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Victim Participation ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: Sense of Accountability at Pre and Post ........................................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Satisfaction Questions asked of All Participants ............................................................................ 11

Figure 7: Offender Specific Satisfaction Questions ........................................................................................ 12

Figure 8: Victim Specific Satisfaction Questions ............................................................................................... 13

Figure 9: Community Member Roles .................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 10: Community Member Specific Satisfaction Questions ............................................................... 15

Prepared by OMNI Institute

2

Background In 2013, House Bill 13-1254 was approved by the Colorado State Legislature and signed by the

Governor to create funding for the development of restorative justice in Colorado. The statute

created four restorative justice pilot programs for youth being diverted from the juvenile justice

system in the 10th, 12th, 19th, and 20th judicial districts. The State Court Administrator’s Office

(SCAO), along with the Colorado Restorative Justice Council, has overseen the pilot from its initial

approval in the legislature to the development and implementation of the restorative justice

programs in each judicial district.

In 2014, OMNI Institute (OMNI) was awarded a grant from SCAO to conduct an evaluation of the

pilot in order to document its implementation and impacts, and satisfy legislative requirements for

monitoring and reporting. More specifically, the evaluation has sought to address the following

questions:

What are the numbers, demographics, and program completion rates of youth

participating in the pilot program (across the four sites)?

What restorative justice practices are implemented across cases and programs?

Do youth show increased levels of accountability and express satisfaction following

participation in the restorative justice process?

Are victims and participating community members satisfied with their experiences in the

restorative justice process?

What is the recidivism rate of youth who successfully completed the program?

Answers to these questions help document whether the pilot sites, and overall program, have

been effective in referring and serving eligible youth, repairing harm to victims and the

community, and reducing youth recidivism through programming that promotes the principles of

restorative justice: relationship building, responsibility, reintegration, respect, and repairing

harm.1

In 2015, House Bill 15-1091 expanded the restorative justice pilot to allow petty and municipal

charges to be eligible for diversion. This change went into effect in August, 2015, allowing a

greater number of youth to be served by the pilot programs.

Finally, this report reflects a preliminary analysis of the data available to date, with a more

comprehensive report to be provided in July 2016.

1 SCAO and the Restorative Justice Council also sought to understand the cost effectiveness of the program, but this question was not addressed as part of the evaluation conducted by OMNI.

Prepared by OMNI Institute 3

METHODS

Development of Evaluation Plan and Measurement Tools

In order to collect data for addressing the evaluation questions, OMNI Institute worked with

SCAO and the Colorado Restorative Justice Council (RJ Council) to:

o Develop and refine survey tools for youth, victims, and offenders (for assessing pre- and

post-program accountability among youth; and satisfaction for all parties following

participation in the restorative justice process)

o Specify data collection fields for documenting individuals and cases processed by each

pilot site, including information such as youth demographics, the offense type/level, victim

participation, restorative justice practices used (i.e., circle, community group

conferencing), and whether an agreement was reached.

o Develop an online case management software system for pilot programs to enter

individual- and case-level data, and to support them in monitoring and improving

adherence to data collection protocols through provision of evaluation technical

assistance.

Once these tools and systems were finalized, OMNI provided training to program staff, and

initiated ongoing evaluation work including survey data entry, regular auditing of the data, and

provision of evaluation technical assistance to support timely data collection, data submission and

resolution of data related issues.

These efforts have created a basic infrastructure to support standardized data collection, allowing

for systematic processes and analysis of restorative justice efforts across multiple programs.

Measures In addition to youth demographics, the evaluation included collection of individual- and case-level

process measures such as the referral source, offense level and type, participation of the victim(s),

and the restorative justice practices implemented. The demographic and process data were

captured by program staff and entered into a central case management software system, Efforts

to Outcomes (ETO), managed by OMNI.

Second, a measure of accountability (i.e., feelings of responsibility for one’s offense and

recognition of the harm it caused to others) was collected from offenders at two time points (pre-

restorative justice program participation and post-restorative justice process) to assess positive

change on this targeted outcome.

Third, satisfaction data were captured from offenders, victims, and community members.

Questions focused on each individual’s role, their participation in the restorative justice process,

experience interacting with others in the restorative justice process, and their overall satisfaction


with the experience. Specific questions are displayed in the example surveys in Appendix A as well

as in the Results section of the report.

The measure of youth’s accountability and satisfaction data for all parties were gathered through

the surveys2. Offenders completed the pre-survey at the beginning of their involvement in the

restorative justice program, and all participants in the restorative justice process (offenders,

victims, and community members) completed surveys immediately following participation in the

restorative justice process in order to capture satisfaction data.

Finally, recidivism data were examined in order to understand the longer term impact of

restorative justice on youths’ re-offense. The Restorative Justice Legislation specified the

importance of examining, for any youth who participated in the restorative justice pilot programs,

any subsequent arrests or filings within one year3.

Sample

As specified in the legislation, youth participating in the restorative justice pilot were participating

in pre-filing diversion. Data included in this report include only those who began and completed

their restorative justice process and juvenile diversion contract between July 1, 2014 and

September 30th, 20154. During this timeframe, 231 youths participated in a restorative justice

process and completed their restorative justice contracts. These 231 youths reflected 185 cases

referred to the restorative justice pilot programs, with the number of youthful offenders

associated with each case ranging from one to four.

Youth included in the analyses were marked as ‘suitable’ for restorative justice and were within

the juvenile age range (10-17) at the time of offense5. Any youth outside of these parameters

were not included. Additionally, the number of youths (n) included for each question sometimes

varied as a result of missing data or data that did not fit diversion criteria6.

Data included in the pre-post analyses of youths’ accountability reflected the 69.7% of the 231

youths (n=161) who completed both the pre- and post-survey. Paired samples t-tests were run on

2 Surveys can be found in Appendix A 3 This definition of recidivism to include subsequent arrests or filings is more stringent than definitions of recidivism found in juvenile probation or juvenile diversion which both look at only filings that occur in the one year after participation in the program. 4 Due to the timing of analyses for this report, full data for the second quarter of FY15-16 were not yet available to be included. 5 Some juveniles turned 18 between the date of offense and their participation in restorative justice. Thus, a small number of 18 year olds did participate in restorative justice pilot programming. 6 For example, if a level of charge was outside of what was expected to be included in the restorative justice pilot (i.e. Class 1 Felony), these data were recoded as missing given the likely data entry error.


the individual questions as well as the overall accountability scale and findings are presented in

the Results section of this report.

Data included in the satisfaction results include responses from youth offenders, victims, and

community members. Of the 185 cases represented in this dataset, 172 offenders7, 89 victims,

and 407 community members provided satisfaction data.

In order to assess the long-term outcome of recidivism, OMNI and SCAO worked with the

Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) to obtain information on statewide district level offenses and

filings for all youth who had exited restorative justice programming. Analysis and observations

reflect only filings (and do not include arrests) that occurred in the year following restorative

justice program participation. Filing data were extracted from the Judicial Department’s

Integrated Colorado Online Network (ICON) information management system via the Colorado

Justice Analytics Support System (CJASS) by DCJ’s Office of Research and Statistics and analyzed

by OMNI. These data informed whether individuals met the criteria for recidivism for diversion: a

filing or filings for a new offense (criminal, misdemeanor, or juvenile delinquency) up to one year

after they exited the program.

Results The vast majority of the youth were served by three of the four judicial district pilot programs.

The largest proportion of youth were served by the 20th judicial district, 39% (n=90). The 19th

judicial district served the next largest proportion of youth at 35% (n=80). The 12th judicial district

served 26% (n=59) and the 10th served 1% (n=2).

DEMOGRAPHICS OF OFFENDER YOUTH

Demographic data were gathered to understand the population being served by the restorative

justice pilot programs.

56% of youth served were male.

Over half of participants were identified as Hispanic/Latino (53%) and just under half were

identified as White, non-Hispanic (41.5%).

7 This number may be greater than the number of matched pre- and post-surveys because all post-surveys completed were included in the satisfaction results, even if a corresponding pre-survey was not obtained.


Figure 1: Race/Ethnicity

The age of the youth participating in restorative justice ranged between 10 and 188, and

the average age of the offender youth was 14.7 years.

PROCESS DATA

Youth referred to the restorative justice programs came from a variety of referral sources, but the

vast majority were referred from the DA’s Office (80.0%). Figure 2, below, displays the referral

sources.

Figure 2: Referral Source for RJ participants

8 All youth were between 10 and 17 at the time of offense.


Nearly all youth were referred to restorative justice pre-file: alternative to filing petition (97.4%). A

handful of youths were referred pre-file: alternative to summons/arrest (2.6%).

Just over half of all charges were misdemeanors (58%), with petty offenses making up 35% of the

charges. The remaining charges were felonies, class three, four, five, or six. Descriptions of the

charges included the following:

Trespassing,

Assault,

Burglary/Theft,

Arson,

Underage possession of marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia,

Criminal Mischief,

Disorderly Conduct (fight/weapon), and

Disturbing the peace

Youth participated in a number of restorative justice processes, as displayed below in Figure 3.

Youth frequently participated in more than one process; thus, percentages in the table below do

not equal 100%.

Figure 3: Type of RJ process

In all cases that were included in this set of analyses, the participants were able to reach an

agreement during the restorative justice process. The vast majority of youth (97.4%) were able to

successfully repair harm, completing their agreement and their contract. In the few cases where


youth did not successfully complete their contracts, youth were unsuccessful due to an arrest on a

new charge or failure to comply with the terms of their contract.

Victim Participation Data During the time period reflected in this report9, data were available for 201 victims in the ETO

case management software. In some cases, youth were counted as both offenders and victims due

to the mutual responsibility for harm to each other. Given the challenge in asking youth to

separate their experiences as an offender and then as a victim, the standard protocol was to

administer only the offender survey to youth representing both an offender and victim. This

process was established since the offender survey contained similar measures as the victim survey

while also ensuring pre- and post-data would be collected on their feelings of accountability. The

data reflected in this section include only individuals who were identified solely as a victim.

As displayed in Figure 4 below, just over half of the victims were contacted for participation in the

restorative justice process (64%) Of those that were contacted, 73% (87 total) participated in a

restorative justice process. For those that did not participate, programs were asked to report the

reason for their lack of participation.

Reasons why a victim might not participate included being unavailable (27%), not interested (8%),

and ‘other’ (66%). Those that had entries under ‘other’ were primarily cases involved in RESTORE

where a retailer representative is used as a surrogate victim. In 45% of the victim records, a

surrogate victim was noted as having participated.

Few victims submitted an impact statement with only one percent of victims having been

recorded as having done so. Only three percent of cases were considered a Victim Rights Act

crime.

9 July 1, 2014 through September 30th, 2015


Figure 4: Victim Participation

YOUTH OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY

Youth were asked to complete a pre-survey prior to their involvement in the restorative justice

program and a post-survey following their participation in the restorative justice process which

included questions about their sense of accountability. Response options ranged from 1 to 4, with

1 indicating ‘strongly disagree’ and 4 indicating ‘strongly agree.’ The figure below displays both the

pre- and post-survey mean scores, the p-value and whether the change from pre-survey to post-

survey was statistically significant.

Taking responsibility for the offense is a qualifying factor for participation in restorative justice.

Likely as a result of youth having already taken responsibility, scores indicated that youth already

felt a high level of accountability for their offense at the time they completed the pre-survey.

However, a statistically significant increase was observed from pre- to post-survey. When

questions were examined individually, scores showed a statistically significant change on four of

the five questions, highlighting that participation in the restorative justice pilot programs was

positively associated with increases in youths’ sense of accountability.


Figure 5: Sense of Accountability at Pre and Post

SATISFACTION DATA All participants in the restorative justice process (offenders, victims, and community members)

were asked to complete a satisfaction survey in order to understand their experience and to

assess whether their goals for the process were met. Responses to the satisfaction questions were

on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating ‘strongly disagree’ and 4 indicating ‘strongly agree.’

Questions asked of all participants are

displayed below in Figure 6. Participants

also responded to a few questions that

were unique to either one or two of the

surveys based on participant type10.

These questions are displayed separately

in subsequent figures, broken out by

individual completing the survey. Parents

of offenders are included in the

community member group.

10 For example, an offender responded to questions about the victim and community members treating him/her with respect, whereas a victim responded to questions about the offender and community members treating him/her with respect.

HIGH LEVELS OF SATISFACTION WERE

REPORTED ACROSS ALL QUESTIONS. OPEN

ENDED RESPONSES OVERWHELMINGLY

INDICATED THAT EXPECTATIONS WERE MET

AND PARTICIPANTS APPRECIATED THE

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESS.


As shown in Figure 6, the mean scores indicate a high level of satisfaction across the common

satisfaction questions with all responses falling between a 3 (Agree with the statement) and 4

(Strongly Agree with the statement).

Figure 6: Satisfaction Questions Asked of All Participants

Participants overwhelmingly indicated their satisfaction when responding to the overarching

question regarding satisfaction, ‘I am satisfied with my restorative justice experience’.

Specifically, results demonstrated the following:

94% of offenders reported that they agreed (31%) or strongly agreed (63%) with this

statement.

96% of victims reported that they agreed (40%) or strongly agreed (56%) with this

statement.

96% of community members reported that they agreed (25%) or strongly agreed (71%)

with this statement.

Offender Satisfaction Overall, mean responses of offender participants indicated positive levels of satisfaction both in

the common satisfaction questions (those found in Figure 6, above) and questions that were

unique to the offender, as displayed in Figure 7, below.

3.65 3.56 3.53 3.52 3.52

3.793.67

3.56 3.623.47

3.77 3.76 3.68 3.75 3.67

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

The restorative justicefacilitator(s) treated me

with respect

I felt safe during therestorative justice

process

I am satisfied with myrestorative justice

experience

I would recommend therestorative justiceprocess to others

The restorative justiceprocess improved myexperience with the

criminal justice system

Satisfaction Questions asked of all Participants

Offender Victim Community Member


Figure 7: Offender Specific Satisfaction Questions

Offenders were also given the opportunity to respond to open ended questions regarding their

initial goals when they entered the program, whether those goals were met, and any additional

comments they wished to share about their overall experience. A few quotes from each question

are included below.

“I was hoping to be able to come out of this as a changed person. I definitely will not steal again,

being that I know the consequences now.”

_______

“I do wish to make up for the wrong I’ve done, to my family and to owner and family of the car. I

want to finish knowing I’ve made things right and to make everything right with the community.”

________

“My goal was to get past this and we did and things will be okay.”

“I love the Restorative justice program. It helped hear all the pain done to all the individuals but

also to myself.”

_______

“I loved how the restore volunteers treated me with respect and proved to me I was better than

my crime without labeling me.”

3.22

3.47 3.52

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

The victim treated me with respect The community members treatedme with respect

I am satisfied with the restorativejustice contract

Offender Specific Satisfaction Questions


Victim Satisfaction Victims responded to the satisfaction questions following their participation in a restorative

justice process. Victim participants indicated a consistently high level of satisfaction, with all

responses falling between a 3 and a 4, and nearly all 3.5 or above. In addition to the victim

satisfaction data displayed in Figure 6, above, Figure 8, below, displays the questions that were

only asked of victims.

Figure 8: Victim Specific Satisfaction Questions

Victims also had the opportunity to respond to open ended questions about their goals and experience in the restorative justice program. A few quotes are included below.

“My goals for the process were to understand why what happened, happened. And for a solution

to be made. I feel better now that I know what everyone thinks.”

_______

“My goal was to make sure the person who committed the crime understood that he violated me

and my family. I was hoping to hear how and why he did this. My goal was met and it’s more clear

to me.”

“I really like how all this was calmly discussed and how we all had a say in what we were discussing.

And that I got to see everything from multiple points of view.”

3.5 3.52 3.58 3.57 3.62

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

The restorativejustice process met

my needs inresponse to this case

I had a voice in howmy crime was dealt

with

The restorativejustice facilitator(s)

was responsive to myneeds

The offender treatedme with respect

The communitymembers treated me

with respect

Victim


_______

“Although I was nervous, I am glad we did this. I have more respect for [offender name] now that

we've had the chance to actually talk to him. I hope this works for other kids!”

Community Member Satisfaction The Community Member survey included additional information about their specific role in the

restorative justice process. As seen in the data displayed below, the largest proportion of

respondents were parents (41.7%) with the second largest proportion identifying themselves

simply as community members (34.6%)

Figure 9: Community Member Roles

Similar to offenders and victims, community members also indicated a high level of satisfaction.

Data displayed in Figure 10, below, show questions that were unique to the community member

satisfaction survey.


Figure 10: Community Member Specific Satisfaction Questions

Finally, community members also had the opportunity to respond to open-ended questions about

their experience, their goals and other thoughts on the process.

“I didn’t know what to expect but I was pleased with how the program was with making the kids

understand that it’s not just a personal consequence but everyone else suffers. My kid

understands what to do next and has taken responsibility for actions.”

_______

“For the youth to understand the impact their actions have on everyone; especially themselves.”

“Very openly respectful and for finally more involvement and consequences with a positive

outcome not just for them but especially the community.”

_______

“This is a great program and I feel like youth can learn from it. I heard how the parents all said that

since the incident, families became closer. And their communication opened up more.”

3.63 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.75 3.68

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

The restorativejustice process

met my needs inresponse to this

case

The restorativejustice

facilitator(s) wasresponsive to my

needs

The offendertreated me with

respect

The victimtreated me with

respect

The othercommunity

members treatedme with respect

I am satisfiedwith my

restorative justicecontract for the

offender

Community Member


RECIDIVISM

The Restorative Justice Legislation specified the importance of examining, for any youth who

participated in the restorative justice program, any subsequent arrests or filings within one year of

completing the restorative justice process. Data were only comprehensively available for youth

who had received a district level filing sometime in the year after their participation in the

restorative justice program. Thus, the following analysis and observations consider only filings

that occurred in the year following restorative justice program participation.

During the fall of 2015, OMNI worked with DCJ and SCAO to obtain statewide recidivism data for

any youth who had exited the restorative justice program since the start of data collection on the

pilot. At the time recidivism data were requested, 258 youths had completed their participation in

a restorative justice pilot program; 9.7% (25)

had been out of the restorative justice

program for a full year, 42.6% (110) had been

out of restorative justice at least six months,

but less than a full year, and 47.7% had been

out of restorative justice for less than six

months.

Looking at youth for whom a full year of

recidivism data were available (n=25) overall,

8% of youth recidivated in the year following the completion of their restorative justice contract.

Several factors were considered; first, data were examined to ensure that the arrest and filing

occurred after participation in the restorative justice program in order to be considered true post-

program recidivism.

Second, data were examined to identify whether youth recidivated within the first 6 months of

completing the program. For those youth who had been out of the program for a full year and were

found to have recidivated, all filings occurred in the second half of the year following completion of

their contract.

The dataset provided for analysis included only those youth who had successfully completed their

restorative justice contract; thus, it was not possible to compare recidivism rates of successful

versus unsuccessful program participants.

Because the sample of youth for whom a full year of recidivism data were available was relatively

small, additional analyses were conducted on a larger sample of youth who had completed their

restorative justice contract at least 6 months prior to the time recidivism data were available, but

less than one year (n=110). This unofficial examination of the data indicated that 8.2% of these

youth had recidivated after completion of their restorative justice contract. While more time

must elapse to calculate official recidivism rates for a larger sample, this supplemental analysis

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES FOUND THAT 8%

OF YOUTH (EXITED FOR ONE YEAR)

RECIDIVATED IN THE YEAR AFTER THE

COMPLETION OF THEIR RESTORATIVE

JUSTICE CONTRACT.


suggests there may be relatively low recidivism for youth that participated in the restorative

justice pilot.

Discussion These findings paint a promising picture of the restorative justice pilot program in Colorado. The

four sites have collectively served and supported hundreds of youth offenders in repairing the

harm of their offenses to victims and community members.

Youth were referred to restorative justice for a variety of offenses and often participated in more

than one restorative justice process. Offender youth indicated an overall increased sense of

accountability following the completion of the restorative justice process, and nearly all youth

were able to successfully repair the harm caused by their offense.

The experiences reflected in the responses to the satisfaction survey indicate that participants are

leaving the restorative justice process with a positive perspective of restorative justice and an

improvement in their perspective of the justice system in general. Importantly, victims have

overwhelmingly provided positive feedback, with open-ended responses indicating that

participants appreciated and benefited from their participation in restorative justice. Further,

participants’ responses indicated that the restorative justice process improved their experience

with the criminal justice system.

Finally, recidivism data were only available for a small proportion of youth who had completed

their restorative justice contract. While the recidivism data indicated a relatively low rate of re-

offense within the year following participation in restorative justice, a larger sample size is needed

in order to make broader statements about the recidivism rate of youth participating in

restorative justice.

LIMITATIONS As with all evaluations, the ability to address questions of interest hinges on the completeness and

quality of the data collected. Missing data was an issue in particular for information regarding

victims and victim participation. Data fields for capturing victim participation were missing for up

to 25% of victims. In order to fully understand the participation of victims, programs must be

consistent in collecting and entering full and complete data throughout the process.

Demographic and background data are entered by program staff into the ETO database (rather

than provided directly by youth via a survey). While many program staff may still be determining

this information based on youths’ self-identification, the inability to monitor internal data

collection and coding practices means there is room for misrepresentation of youths’

demographics.


Finally, with the numbers of youth served varying greatly across pilot programs, it is important to

note that programs were not represented equally in these data sets; thus individual pilot program

findings may differ.

EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS Data from the pilot restorative justice programs highlighted juveniles’ increased sense of

accountability following participation, and the success of the restorative justice process in helping

offenders and victims meet their goals, repair harm to victims and the community, and yield high

satisfaction from all participants. To ensure evaluation of the larger program effort continues to

yield valid and actionable findings, and is responsive to the information needs of multiple

stakeholders, we offer the following recommendations:

Continue to review and refine evaluation activities

o Identify opportunities to collect new information for cases where victims may not

be participating in the process. These additional pieces of data could provide

important information about the youths’ experience as well as help account for

data that currently appear to be missing for the victims.

o Identify opportunities to capture additional short-term outcome data. In addition

to the sense of accountability scale, incorporating additional short-term outcome

measures into the youth pre- and post-survey may help provide a greater depth of

understanding of the potential impact of restorative justice on youth offenders.

Outcomes of interest might include connection to community or family and

measures of youths’ beliefs or attitudes that are targeted through restorative

justice practices and are predictive of reduced delinquency. With any changes or

updates to the short-term outcomes, it may also be beneficial to reconsider the

timing of the post-survey to be conducted following completion of the full

restorative justice contract. This would ensure post outcome measurements are

taken only after full participation in restorative justice. Satisfaction questions

could continue to be completed immediately following the restorative justice

process.

o Identify opportunities to meet all evaluation goals. One of the more challenging

aspects of the evaluation has been to assess whether the principles of restorative

justice (relationship building, responsibility, reintegration, respect, and repairing

harm) are being promoted through the restorative justice pilot. While it can be

assumed that these principles are a core focus of the restorative justice programs

being implemented, no data were obtained to validate this assumption. Given the

importance of these principles, and that they were originally identified as a goal of

the evaluation, future efforts should explore means to operationalize and collect

data related to these principles.

Continue to support restorative justice practitioners through evaluation technical

assistance. Data collection is an often complex process which can result in incomplete

data. It will be important for programs to continue to receive ongoing support with regular


data auditing and technical assistance to ensure the completeness of their data. Additional

data tools such as reports pulled from ETO and the data dashboard support

documentation and communication of any data related issues identified allowing a

technical assistance team to ensuring the greatest quality and completeness of data are

available for the evaluation.

Ensure consistent and clear definitions and messaging regarding data collection and data

entry. The pilot phase of the restorative justice programs has been instrumental in shaping

and defining the evaluation participants, the timing of data collection and the data entry

requirements. Through the process of the pilot phase, several tools were developed to

help support consistent definitions and expectations. It will remain critical to build upon

and refine these tools with feedback from pilot programs to ensure consistency and

standardization across all programs.

Appendix A

Pre Satisfaction Questionnaire

_______

As part of doing restorative justice, we would like you to answer some questions about your thoughts,

feelings, and behaviors. There are no right or wrong answers so choose the answer that is closest to

what you really think or feel. This survey will help make the restorative justice program useful for

other people so please answer each question as thoughtfully and honestly as possible. Please DO

NOT put your name anywhere on this survey. All of your answers will be kept private and will only

be seen by the program staff and researchers.

Completing this survey is completely voluntary. Please read every question carefully and choose only

one answer for each question. If you don’t find an answer that fits exactly, use the one that comes

closest.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Case ID: ________________________ Agency Name:

Survey Date: ____/____/_________ Offender

ii | P a g e

What are your goals for the restorative justice process? What do you hope will be achieved as

a result?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please mark the box that best matches how much you agree with each item.

Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

I think restorative justice will help me deal with my

offense.

My offense harmed the victim.

My offense harmed the community.

My offense harmed my family.

My offense harmed me.

I am sorry for my offense.

I think I will be able to repair the harm I caused to the

victim.

I think I will be able to repair the harm I caused to the

community.

COMMENTS:

Is there anything else you would like to say about the restorative justice process or about how

this case is being handled?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iii | P a g e

Post Satisfaction Questionnaire

________









closest.


Case ID: ________________________ Agency Name: Center for Restorative Programs

Survey Date: ____/____/_________ Offender

iv | P a g e

What were your goals for the restorative justice process? What did you hope would be

achieved as a result?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Strongly


Strongly

Disagree

The restorative justice process helped me deal with my

offense.

My crime harmed the victim.

My crime harmed the community.

My crime harmed my family.

My crime harmed me.

I am sorry for my crime.

I think I was able to repair the harm I caused to the

victim.

I think I was able to repair the harm I caused to the

community.

Strongly


Strongly

Disagree

The restorative justice facilitator(s) treated me with

respect.

The victim treated me with respect.

v | P a g e

The community members treated me with respect.

I felt safe during the restorative justice process.

I am satisfied with my restorative justice experience.

I am satisfied with my restorative justice contract.

I would recommend restorative justice to others.

The restorative justice process improved my experience


COMMENTS:


this case was handled?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

vi | P a g e


________









closest.



Survey Date: ____/____/_________ Victim

vii | P a g e



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Strongly


Strongly

Disagree

The restorative justice process met my needs in

response to this case.

I had a voice in how my crime was dealt with.

The restorative justice facilitator(s) was responsive to

my needs.

The restorative justice facilitator treated me with

respect.

The offender treated me with respect.

The community members treated me with respect.



I would recommend the restorative justice process to

others



COMMENTS:



___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

viii | P a g e


________









closest.



Survey Date: ____/____/_________ Community Member

ix | P a g e

My role in this restorative justice process is:

Parent/Guardian Other Family member Witness Police/Law Enforcement Community Member Offender Support Victim Support Other _________________________



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Strongly


Strongly

Disagree

The restorative justice process met my needs in

response to this case.

The restorative justice facilitator(s) was responsive to

my needs.

The restorative justice facilitator treated me with

respect.

The offender treated me with respect.

The victim treated me with respect.

The other community members treated me with respect.


1 | P a g e

I am satisfied with my restorative justice contract for the

offender.


I would recommend restorative justice to others.



COMMENTS:



___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by OMNI Institute

II

Restorative Justice Pilot Evaluation · In 2014, OMNI Institute (OMNI) was awarded a grant from SCAO to conduct an evaluation of the pilot in order to document its implementation

Documents